RE: Is it too late?

[William Prestwich <prestwic@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>]

	I firmly believe we have been mired in what in some ways is a

semantic problem arising out of our rigorous scientific training, as well

as the use of the LNT. I don't know how many times I have heard the

propogandist chant-"It has been scientifically proven that there is no

safe level of radiation". This obfuscation arises not just from the LNT,

but from the definition of safe as zero risk. The fact is that safe is often

thought of in binary terms-either something is safe or it is not. In the

latter case it is equated to be dangerous. So the practical interpretation of

the LNT is that any level of radiation is dangerous.

	As I see it there is absolutely no scientific definition of the

term safe, and its concept is a social one. I think it is really necessary

for those who wish to retain the LNT for regulatory purposes to fight the

political battle to define a practical non-zero level of risk to be

defined as safe. This would then lead to a practical threshhold, and the

regulators should state emphatically that levels below this are

indeed safe. This is firmer than the bureaucratic "below regulatory

concern"

	I do not believe this to be dishonest, but in fact the only sane

response to the LNT model. The alternative is to be frightened of every

banana, quart of milk, yard of earth and fellow human being on the

planet-a state I would define as insane.

Cheers,

Bill Prestwich

McMaster University,

Hamilton, Ontario.

prestwic@mcmaster.ca





On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Robert J. Gunter wrote:



> Greetings All,

>

> There are things we can do to turn public opinion around.  A good start

> would be a sustained shift away from pandering to peoples desire to shut

> down everything "radioactive".  For example, when a critic states that

> some limit is too high, a typical response has been to lower the limit.

>

> What should be done is to point out that the limit is appropriate.  The

> key is to stay "on message", and not argue the point.  The science

> indicates that risk is insignificant, even if you subscribe to LNT.

>

> Yes, I know a lot of these decisions are politically motivated.  It is

> our job to provide facts to the decision makers.  Clear choices make for

> defendable decisions.  We tend to hedge our bets when asked for

> opinions.  If you are the decision maker, do you side with the clear

> choice (just say no) or the one backed up with a lot of indecision?

>

>

>

> Robert J. Gunter, CHP

> CHP Consultants

> www.chpconsultants.com

> rjgunter@chpconsultants.com

> (865) 387-0028 ph

> (865) 483-7189 fax

> Oak Ridge, TN

>

>

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/